BG3 best build for dex-based dual-wielder.

[ChaosTheory]

Not familiar with 5e ruleset-- trying to figure out (without spoilers) which route to go for a dexterity-based, dual wielder: Ranger or Rogue, or combination of both. Maybe 5 levels of Ranger to get extra attack, then maybe 5 levels of Rogue for uncanny dodge. I assume both Ranger and Rogue can use "finesse weapons feat" to make Dex my primary stat?

I'm guessing I'll be stuck with light armor only, unless for some reason there are special items available that would make medium feasible without a dex hit.

Don't care about spells, really at all. Just enough to mark target or whatever it's called (12? 14 intel?) as I get my systems mixed up now with Divinity and other RPGs.

Primary focus will be sprinting/jumping ahead to take out the opposing magic user, but THEN be able to hold my own in combat as I don't want to have to maneuver for backstabs all day. Not interested in archery.

Also not sure I'm going to want the vampire guy in my party, and from what I understand he's the only rogue option-- so I want to have some of those bases covered if I have to be a skill monkey.

Thoughts?

 

[Stingray]

I don't believe there is a finesse feat anymore, some weapons are flagged as finesse and those just automatically use dex (or str, whichever is higher). There is still a Dual Wielder feat that lets you dual wield non-light weapons and also gives you +1 AC while dual wielding. Any class can get that. You'd need it if you wanted to dual wield rapiers, those are finesse but not light.

The Thief subclass of Rogue gets an extra bonus action each turn, which gives you an extra attack with your off-hand, since you use your bonus action to attack with your offhand in 5th edition.

Haven't done this myself, but it seems Ranger can get Two-Weapon Fighting Style which lets you add your full dex/str modifier to the dmg of your off-hand attacks, and Rogue can't.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style | Baldurs Gate 3 Wiki

Two-Weapon Fighting Style is a Traits and Feature in Baldur's Gate 3. Two-Weapon Fighting Style effect, requirements and tips for BG3.

baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com

From what I've read, a lot of people are doing dual-wield hand crossbows on Rogue.

 

[OverIt]

I'd say rogue. Lockpinking is very important in this game and not having someone who specializes in it sucks like i am having this second play through. That said ranged combat for rogue seems far more effective than melee combat for rogue.

 

[ChaosTheory]

So after significant research (as I haven't started the game, yet) it appears that dual-wielding is a loser's bet, not only for 5e rules but also BG3. It works in the first portion of the game, but quickly scales down in effectiveness as the game progresses over other builds.

I'm not a min/maxer, but even for roleplaying purposes only, it's not worth it right now. Perhaps patches/expansions will make it more effective.

 

[Vaelith]

So after significant research (as I haven't started the game, yet) it appears that dual-wielding is a loser's bet, not only for 5e rules but also BG3. It works in the first portion of the game, but quickly scales down in effectiveness as the game progresses over other builds.

I'm not a min/maxer, but even for roleplaying purposes only, it's not worth it right now. Perhaps patches/expansions will make it more effective.

Spoiler: BG3 Item info

There are a couple of weapons that are well suited for dual wielding, allowing you to add your Dex bonus to the offhand damage and such, but they are obtained pretty late into the game, and I'd argue not worth building around.

There is also an extremely good weapon that has a very good bonus when you use it in one hand without using anything in the offhand.

Generally, I don't think Dual Wielding is worthwhile in 5e altogether, no. There are usually much better things to do with your bonus action than a single little offhand attack, and that's even more true in BG3 than in DnD due to the existence of the jump action and the availability of Misty Step items which are pretty crucial for rogues to get around fights quickly.

 

[Vaelith]

= That said ranged combat for rogue seems far more effective than melee combat for rogue.

It's mostly due to the Sharpshooter feat.

Once your Attack Bonus gets good enough, the penalty is easy to overcome, and +10 flat damage per hit is really good. This is also why dual-hand crossbows work well, just get in as many attacks as possible to benefit from Sharpshooter and pelt enemies down, especially if you equip on-hit damage items/spells and add different ammo types to each shot. There is no similar feat for melee dual wielders (there is one for great weapons though, that's also pretty solid for characters like Lae'zel or Karlach).

 

[HellRazor]

The rogue's sneak attack and ability to hide also makes him pretty effective in combat, both from a distance with bows, and in melee with short swords or daggers. The biggest downsides are generally lower hitpoints and limitations on armor and types of weapons.

 

[Stingray]

It's mostly due to the Sharpshooter feat.

Once your Attack Bonus gets good enough, the penalty is easy to overcome, and +10 flat damage per hit is really good. This is also why dual-hand crossbows work well, just get in as many attacks as possible to benefit from Sharpshooter and pelt enemies down, especially if you equip on-hit damage items/spells and add different ammo types to each shot. There is no similar feat for melee dual wielders (there is one for great weapons though, that's also pretty solid for characters like Lae'zel or Karlach).

Additionally, when using dual hand crossbows, there appears to be no damage penalty on the offhand, like there is when dual wielding melee weapons. I don't know why. Maybe it's a bug? Also, you can stack other things in as well, for example I use a ring that gives +2 acid dmg to each attack.

 

[ChaosTheory]

Additionally, when using dual hand crossbows, there appears to be no damage penalty on the offhand, like there is when dual wielding melee weapons. I don't know why. Maybe it's a bug? Also, you can stack other things in as well, for example I use a ring that gives +2 acid dmg to each attack.

I know if I build a character that duals hand crossbows and get several hours into the game, a patch will immediately nerf it. Promise.

 

[JDR13]

Just curious, but are dual-hand crossbows a thing in the PnP game? The concept seems ridiculous to me. How is the character reloading them?

 

[Pladio]

Just curious, but are dual-hand crossbows a thing in the PnP game? The concept seems ridiculous to me. How is the character reloading them?

With his tadpole.

 

[Stingray]

Just curious, but are dual-hand crossbows a thing in the PnP game? The concept seems ridiculous to me. How is the character reloading them?

I believe you would need the Crossbow Expert feat in PnP, but you don’t need it in BG3. The 1st and 3rd bullet points (below) from the PnP feat, both of which you’ll need, aren’t part of the BG3 feat:

Crossbow Expert - DND 5th Edition

dnd5e.wikidot.com

 

[JDR13]

That doesn't say anything about dual-wielding them though.

 

[Stingray]

Sure, the feat says "holding" not "wielding". Not sure if there is any practical difference there that would matter.

Maybe you could interpret it as you only need a single hand crossbow, and you can use that single one to get off extra attacks, as if you were dual wielding two.

 

[Stingray]

Also, something I hadn't thought about... Since getting an "offhand" attack (ie: an attack with a bonus action) with a hand crossbow in PnP requires that feat, and that feat doesn't mention any damage penalty for these hand crossbow bonus attacks, maybe that's actually why there is no damage penalty on the offhand attack when dual-wielding hand crossbows in BG3. It's more true to the PnP rules that way. Although obviously as mentioned, BG3 isn't requiring that feat to be able to do it. The BG3 version of the feat only eliminates the close-range disadvantage, and improves Piercing Shot.

I imagine the reason they didn't implement the feat exactly as in PnP is because they didn't want to have to let people be able to get an "offhand" attack with a hand crossbow after attacking with a melee weapon, which the feat should allow for. Would likely have complicated the way they divide melee/ranged into separate weapon sets.

 

[JDR13]

Sure, the feat says "holding" not "wielding". Not sure if there is any practical difference there that would matter.

Maybe you could interpret it as you only need a single hand crossbow, and you can use that single one to get off extra attacks, as if you were dual wielding two.

The key word would be "dual", and I don't see that being indicated there. Maybe I just read it wrong.

 

[Stingray]

The key word would be "dual", and I don't see that being indicated there. Maybe I just read it wrong.

Ok, I'm not sure what your point is. First, if we want to be technical, in 5e, it's not called Dual Wielding to begin with, it's called Two Weapon Fighting. So, I agree that using a hand crossbow for offhand attacks, per that feat, isn't Two Weapon Fighting per se, because the rules say that Two Weapon Fighting only applies to melee weapons. But, that feat lets you use a hand crossbow in the same way as an offhand weapon, so in essence it enables the exact equivalent of Two Weapon Fighting with a hand crossbow as an offhand.

 

[Stingray]

Just for reference, here's what enables dual wielding, from the 5e player's handbook:

https://imgur.com/NM9suqD

View: https://i.imgur.com/NM9suqD.png

 

[JDR13]

Ok, I'm not sure what your point is. First, if we want to be technical, in 5e, it's not called Dual Wielding to begin with, it's called Two Weapon Fighting. So, I agree that using a hand crossbow for offhand attacks, per that feat, isn't Two Weapon Fighting per se, because the rules say that Two Weapon Fighting only applies to melee weapons. But, that feat lets you use a hand crossbow in the same way as an offhand weapon, so in essence it enables the exact equivalent of Two Weapon Fighting with a hand crossbow as an offhand.

I made a comment about duel-wielding crossbows (or whatever you want to call it since it's 5E), and you linked to something that doesn't say anything about having a weapon in each hand. That's my point.

 

[Stingray]

I made a comment about duel-wielding crossbows (or whatever you want to call it since it's 5E), and you linked to something that doesn't say anything about having a weapon in each hand. That's my point.

I still don't understand what you're getting at.

Let's say you attack with a shortsword, and then you use a hand crossbow for an offhand attack with your bonus action (per the Crossbow Expert feat). The feat does say you have to be holding the hand crossbow. So I would assume it does need to be in your other hand. Are you thinking that the person would actually stow the shortsword, pull out the hand crossbow, then do that bonus attack? I don't think both stowing and drawing would be allowed as a free action, so that seems impossible.